[email protected] wrote:

> Hi,
> I read patent 6,914,453 by IBM and trying to follow the paper's claim
> pattern to write my claims.
>
> The next question is:
> What is the difference between Method and Apparatus in a patent claim
> area?
>
> The interesting thing happens with the claims:
> The patent repeats all sentences in claims for Method with a few
> changes to make up claims for Apparatus.
>
> I will follow their patterns, but I really don't realize why to do them
> repeatedly?
>
> Any patent precedents that if not repeated, a very serious consequences
> would follow?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Weng
>
Read at least a dozen different patents, pick those that "closely"
relate to what you are doing.
Note that there are two kinds of claims, independent and dependent.
The first claim is the most important and is always an independent claim.
Usually, but not always, the second claim is a dependent claim and
will be worded like "...of claim 1" or such, some aspect being a little
different than that described in claim one.
Crafting claims is an art.
You must describe the novel item so others "skilled in the art" can
reproduce it.
That does not mean that what they produce will work as well as what
you invented, and/or that they *understand* or *believe* what you said.
Also, if the device is completely novel (such as the transistor first
patented in the US by Lillienfeld in the late 1920s), it is not required
that a correct theory be described - a wild guess will do.
And....even as a "small entity" it is expensive.
If the claims are crafted properly, few if any will raise an
objection (does not correctly fit the legal requirements) and a good
patent lawyer can "argue" (ie: give good legal reasons) that the wording
is OK as-is.
Furthermore, the time in process will be "short" - less than 2 years.
The claims should cover all possible aspects that can be legally
covered; some claims being rather specific and others as general as
possible, looking at the item upside-down, sideways, backwards,
inside-out, and crazy-blue-sky if one can.
If you invent the paper clip and describe only its holding
capabilities, you lose the sales and profits of its use as a slingshot.